SINGARAVEL RAJA,VILLUPURAM vs. ITO, WARD 1, VILLUPURAM

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘बी’ �ायपीठ चे�ई म�। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय �ी मनोज कुमार अ�वाल ,लेखा सद� एवं माननीय �ी मनु कुमार िग�र, �ाियक सद� के सम�। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM आयकरअपील सं./ ITA No.601/Chny/2024 (िनधा�रणवष� / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Singaravel Raja, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward -1, 5/459, Pandur Village Main Road, Villupuram. Pandur P.O. Ulundurpet T.K. Villupuram 606 102. [PAN: AOOPR 0652P] (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��यथ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� क� ओर से/ Appellant by : Ms. Nidhi D. Jain, C.A. ��यथ� क� ओर से /Respondent by : Shri. S. Easwar, IRS, JCIT. सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing : 20.05.2024 घोषणा क� तार�ख /Date of Pronouncement : 29.05.2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member) This Income Tax Appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1061238550 (1) dated 21.02.2024 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)(NFAC) Delhi [CIT(A)] for Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The brief facts of the case are that assessee’s case was reopened u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (In short ‘the Act’) on the basis of the information

2 ITA No.601/Chny/2024 flagged in accordance with the risk management strategy formulated by CBDT. As per information, the appellant had made cash deposits to the tune of Rs.22,35,000/- and time deposit to the tune of Rs.49,50,000/- in VDCC KVB, Ulundurpet. In response to notice u/s 148 of the Act, the assessee for first time has filed return of income for A.Y.2015-16 wherein assessee has shown his nature of business as a real estate contractor-Commission income and shown a turnover of Rs.22,35,000/- and income of Rs.1,78,800/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, assessing officer (In short ‘AO’) asked explanation from assessee in respect of cash deposits to the tune of Rs.22,35,000/- and time deposit to the tune of Rs.49,50,000/- in VDCC KVB, Ulundurpet. One perusal of the reply of the aassessee, AO observed that assessee has failed to substantiate its claim with supporting documents. Accordingly the assessment was completed on 13.03.2023 u/s 147 read with section 144B of the Act and made an addition of Rs.71,90,000/- treating deposits from undisclosed sources u/s 69A.

3 ITA No.601/Chny/2024 from operation of the provisions of clause (b) of sub-section (4) of section 249 of the Act’’. Ld.CIT(A) further observed that since the appellant has not filed return of income as well as not paid an amount equal to the amount of advance tax which was payable by it in the light of section 249(4) read with section 234B(1) and section 208 of the Act. 4. On further appeal before us, Ld. Counsel submitted that Ld.CIT(A) has not properly adjudicated the matter and he grossly erred stating that the appellant has not filed return of income. Ld.Counsel further submitted that Ld.CIT(A) grossly ignored the fact that Appellant has filed return of income under section 148 on 08.04.2022 and the same has been duly reported in Form 35 under point 8 and 8.1. Ld. Counsel furthermore, submitted that no intimation sent by Ld.CIT(A) dated 02.02.2024 was received by the appellant. Hence prayed for set aside the matter before Ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. 5. The Ld. DR, Shri S. Easwer, JCIT supported the order of Ld.CIT(A). He further submitted that there is no infirmity in the order of Ld.CIT(A). 6. We have heard both the parties, perused the materials available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below.The facts borne out from the assessment order and submissions put forth by the Ld.Counsel clearly indicate that Ld.CIT(A) missed to read the Form 35 under point 8 and 8.1.We further observed that the assessment order dated 13.03.2023 clearly records filing of return of income by the appellant. Therefore, we do find infirmity in the impugned order of Ld.CIT(A) invoking section 249(4) read with section 234B(1) and section 208 of the Act and

4 ITA No.601/Chny/2024 dismissing the appeal as infructuous. Further, we are of the considered opinion that in the interest of justice, the case requires adjudication afresh by ld. Assessing Officer so that assessee can substantiate explanation for cash deposit with cogent evidence, if any. Therefore, we deem it fit to restore back the appeal to ld. Assessing Officer for denovo adjudication after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee subject to cost of Rs.5,000/- which shall be deposited by assessee within thirty days from the date of receipt of this order to ‘’Tamil Nadu Stage Legal Services Authority’ at Hon’ble High Court of Madras. The proof of the receipt will be furnished by the assessee to ld. Assessing Officer who shall proceed for denovo adjudication of cash deposit of Rs.71,90,900/- The assessee is directed to substantiate its case forthwith failing which ld. Assessing Officer shall be at liberty to proceed with disposal of appeal on merits.

Sd/- Sd/- (मनोज कुमार अ�वाल) (मनु कुमार िग�र) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) (MANU KUMAR GIRI) लेखा सद� / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER �ाियक सद� / JUDICIAL MEMBER चे�ई Chennai: िदनांक Dated :29-05-2024 KV आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत /Copy to : 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��थ�/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु�/CIT, Chennai, Coimbatore, Madurai, Salem. 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड�फाईल/GF